RE: How can a Christian reject part of the Bible and still call themselves a Christian?
February 14, 2014 at 1:42 pm
(This post was last modified: February 14, 2014 at 1:43 pm by Jackalope.)
(February 14, 2014 at 1:14 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Yeah, it makes sense, I just don't understand the functional distinction as it applies to the burden of proof. If one were to ask about your belief in a god, say, as part of a discussion forum designed around debating that very belief, you'd have to say you accept that he exists, just to remain truthful, right? That's making the claim, regardless of how softly you do it. To say that this absolves you of the burden of proof... well, perhaps it means you aren't interested in shouldering it, but it's still there.
That burden is only there if he wishes to convince others of it's truth. Otherwise, he's under no obligation to justify it to anyone other than himself.
Only when god's existential status is a point of debate would it matter - and then, if one were to take this line would it would be worthy of ridicule.
